Division II is not competing with Division III. Therefore, their competitions shouldn't be set up as if they are.



Ok...
As I've said about a thousand times now, it's not execution, but GENERAL EFFECT. That's GENERAL EFFECT, for those who've missed it all these times, that's making the big difference in the scores, the result of considerable differences in size. That's the exact reason there are three divisions instead of two.

GWFrog has said it all. Anything else from me would be still more repetition of the same stuff, to be ignored again by people who aren't reading what they're responding to.

Once again, you have your facts wrong.

Yes, Joe Kuerzi did propose a finals format change. No, it was not the one that we used this season. In fact, it wasn't even close. Yes, Bob Jacobs proposed a finals format based on score. No, it didn't pass. Yes, Bob Jacobs and Peter LeFlamme proposed a second format. Yes, that is the one that was voted on and passed for this season. No, Joe Keurzi did not vote for it, nor did Dave Svaleson (Blue Stars director).

In fact, the only reason there were three spots guaranteed for Division III corps, was because Dave Svaleson stood up and proposed it. If not for that, I suppose there would've been no Div III corps in Div II/III finals. Not tooting his horn, just stating a fact. Yes, we want the highest quality performances, but we also want to see all Divisions represented fairly and equally.

I wasn't at the meeting, but I highly doubt you were either. Check your facts. I have.

HALLELUJAH! I hope everybody who insists upon arguing every detail reads and re-reads that sentence. The horse, the bloodied remains of which were buried three days ago, appreciates your persistence. Many good points have been made in this thread regarding the 2002 Div 2/3 finals format, but IMHO the above quote sums it up.

Thank you, please drive through.

Actually, blustarsfco, your supposition is incorrect. Had Dave Svaleson not stood up and insisted on guaranteed Div III spots, Revolution and Blue Stars STILL would have made it in (and Taipei Yuehfu if you want to count them).
I agree, this IS a dead horse. It's the way it is for now and it's up to the directors to argue over it in Las Vegas.

E
SoI '85
Rev staff '02-

I was at the February meeting:

Yes - JOE KURZI from Americanos submitted the current finals format - It was different from what Bob Jacobs had submitted back in 1999 when Jersey Surf was a finalist. These measures were not implemented out of spite because thier group missed finals but rather educated decisions based on growing the competitiveness of OUR activity. These gentlemen get paid to do thier jobs and know of all the factors with DCI that you are clueless to. LET THEM MAKE THE DECISIONS AND LETS ALL JUST MARCH OK! As as for Div II not competing against Div III - As long as we are on the same sheets and being scored by the same judges - yes you are! And also for you close minded people out there in regards to smaller meaning lessor GE - That is plain bull - why don't you go back and look at some recaps of Mandarins when they were around 35 members (1996) or Acdemie Musicale or Les Etoliles or Americanos for that matter! Yes GE is 40% but when you are executing well that can be overcome with the other 60% ! It is all about packaging a great show and selling it! Why don't you talk to a judge sometimes and see what he thinks! I have and I know his words exactly - QUALITY over Quantity! Let this rest and lock this topic because the conversation is not productive and is just creating a LOT of inuendo and flase statements. You want things to go back the way they were go back in time! If not contact your director or other directors and let them know what you think! You may be surprized by thier responses.

Thanks You

I'm just going to sit and laugh from now on at how rediculous this thread has become. We can argue about how size doesn't matter in theory all we want (which serves no purpose), but on the field is where it really counts.

I'm out.

will any superstar 60 member group ever beat a top four div. I...

i highly doubt it... i would like to see the judges that would make that a reality.

well it looks like this thread has come to an end then. . . and it looks like we all came to the same conclusion. . .
DIV III JUST CAN'T COMPETE!!!

How can you expect it to end there when you make an inflammatory comment like that?

You're right in that Div 3 can't compete with most Div 1 and many Div 2 corps for all the reasons that have already been stated. That's why there are 3 separate (and hardly equal) competitive divisions. This is exactly my point; no one division is specifically supposed to compete against the other 2 until perhaps DCI quaterfinals.

Alas, we're accomplishing nothing, and even my feathers are ruffled. I hope you were trying to be funny with the above comment bfhdznr. If not, it's sad to see such a lack of appreciation for what the smaller corps do (nevermind terribly ignorant).

I hesitate to correct you, as I was not at the February meeting, but I was at the earlier meeting (November) where I believe these decisions were made. And I took notes.

The "Bob Jacobs" proposal (actually refined by the entire II/III executive board) included a three-round championship proposal, and more dramatic changes that would have realigned the divisions, doing away with the 60-member criterion for division III. This proposal failed 7-14. Immediately following that vote, a proposal was made to adopt the three-round championship concept, specifics yet to be determined. That passed 19-2. Then, various proportions of II vs. III were debated at length.

The starting point was what had been listed in the "Bob Jacobs" proposal, which was 3 IIs, 3 IIIs and the next best 11 in semifinals, and 3 IIs, 3 IIIs and the next 6 in finals. Naturally, several division III corps directors voiced concerns. One proposal for 7 IIs and 10 IIIs in semifinals was motioned, and never seconded. Eventually, someone (George Brown, if I remember correctly) suggested 5 IIs, 7 IIIs and the next 5 in semifinals, to guarantee division III units the same number of advancing corps as the system of previous years. This idea broke the logjam, and along with the 3/3/6 finals and the mixed seeding for prelims, passed 13-3.

The only aspect of the championship format that was tabled for the February meeting was the tournament seeding process. Since the directors had agreed to mix the divisions in one big prelim show, the seeding system had to change.

Joe Kuerzi did initiate something along the way - may have been the three-round motion that passed 19-2. Perhaps he was also involved in redefining the tournament seeding process at the February meeting.

I couldn't tell you how any individual corps voted, as the important votes were done on paper.

hey audiodb,
thanks for the info on this. im sure it helped clear alot of stuff up involving how II/III came to their descision on the new finals week system.
I Like IT!

Which corps are from?

Ok I am sorry but I dont nkow what yall are getting so mad about.

guys just take a breath hahaha

oh well, I guess there will always be that one person that says something "coug cough" then someone freaks out about it oh well.



phone of melloness